Manuele Margni, CIRAIG - Behind the Water Footprint Stream: Metrics and Initiatives


Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • The proposed International Standard will deliver principles, requirements and guidelinesfor a water footprint metric of products, processes and organisations, based on the guidance of impact assessment as given in ISO 14044. It will define how the different types of water sources (for example ground, surface, lake, river, green, blue, gray, etc.) should be considered, how the different types of water releases should be considered, and how the local environmental conditions (dry areas, wet areas) should be treated. For products, it will apply the life cycle approach and will be based on the same product system as specified in ISO 14040 and ISO 14044. At the organisation level, it will consider the guidance given by ISO 14064 for greenhouse gases. The standard will also address the communication issues linked to the water footprint
  • Examples of 3 regions embedded? St-Laurence, quebec, canada?
  • Manuele Margni, CIRAIG - Behind the Water Footprint Stream: Metrics and Initiatives

    1. 1. Behind the Water Footprint Stream -Metrics and InitiativesOverview of available metrics to asses potential impacts of wateruse and current initiatives integrating them within LCAManuele Margni, Ph.D.Scientific coordinator, CIRAIGEcole Polytechnique Montré (Incl. material provided by Quantis)
    2. 2. CIRAIG FactsheetFounded in 2000Multidisciplinary world-renowned research centre135+ professors, researchers and students10 universities, 7 Chairs, 5 research unitsMember of the UNEP/SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeNumerous collaborations (Canada, USA, Europe)120+ applied research projects (industry and gov.)Official spin-offExpertise: Carbon and Water footprint LCA Company-based LCA and sustainability dashboard Ecodesign Environmental communication 2
    3. 3. The Water Footprint Stream: Initiatives and timeline Source: WBCSD 3
    4. 4. Which Footprint Is Correct? Chapagain Humbert et al Humbert et al and Hoekstra 2009 (1) 2009 (2) 2007 140 L per 29 L per 4 L per serving But what water is serving serving important? Includes Includes Includes “green” water irrigation neither• There is currently little consistency in the scope of water footprint and what is measured• There is nearly no consistency in how to evaluate impact 4
    5. 5. Problem Statement But what water is important?• To know what water is important, we must know what type of water use occurs and where• To know the impact of water use, we must know the impact of each use type in each geography• The method must be operational for companies to apply in decision making 5
    6. 6. Accounting vs. Impact Assessment vs. Communication
    7. 7. Impact Assessment Framework in LCA
    8. 8. Water Scarcity Assessment(«Screening assessment » using Water stress index, WSI)
    9. 9. Water Scarcity vs. Full Assessment DE CH DE CH DE CH Turbined water•Importance to check the (range/scope of) validity of the results
    10. 10. Why Expanding the Scope of Water Footprint to LCA? Climate Natural Waterfootprint Ecosystems Human health change resources To avoid burden shifting from an impact category to another 10
    11. 11. Framework for Freshwater use In LCA (UNEP-SETAC LC Initiative)Inventory Areas of Protection Midpoint EndpointBackup All ImpactTechnology Categories Water deprivation Human for human Health HUMAN USES uses Modification of water availability for… Water Water deprivation Ecosystems Use ECOSYSTEMS for Quality ecosystems Water FUTURE Natural deprivation for GENERATIONS resources future generations
    12. 12. Human Health Impacts from production of board in Hanoi for different scenarios 7.E-04HHImpacts, board production, Hanoi (DALY/ton) Remaining substances 6.E-04 Arsenic, to air 5.E-04 Arsenic, to water 4.E-04 Dioxins Ammonia 3.E-04 Hydrocarbons, aromatic 2.E-04 Zinc, to soil 1.E-04 Sulfur dioxide 0.E+00 Particulates, < 2.5 um Well-treated Average All water Nitrogen oxides effluent effluent consumed (S2a) (S3a) (No effluent) WATER 12
    13. 13. ... Avoid Taking the Wrong Decision Spatial variation of blue water consumption bioenergycrop production within Spain at two different levels: Impact Assessment Inventory accounting (Source: Nunez Montserrat, SETAC EU 2010) 13
    14. 14. UNEP-SETAC Life Cycle InitiativeInternational initiative for LCAReview and characterization of existing accounting and Impact assessment methodsRecommendations (end 2010) for: Science Practitioners (incl. industry)Contact: Manuele Margni, CIRAIG Sebastien Humbert, Quantis 14
    15. 15. Towards an International Standard for Water Footprinting“Water Footprint: Principles, Requirements and Guidances”International standard for water footprinting This International Standard specifies requirements and guidelines to assess and report water footprint based on LCA • Terminology, communication • Important stages to consider • Consistency with carbon footprinting and other LCA impact categories ◦ Scope, system boundary • Review/Validation • ReportingBegan 2009, end 2011Towards industry and practitioners
    16. 16. Manuele MargniCIRAIG – École Polytechnique de Montréal 16
    17. 17. “Scope 1” Analogous Tools – “Scope 3” Analogous Tools – Direct Usage Total FootprintWBCSD Water Tool Water Footprint Network (WFN) (Planning update to consider LCA-based footprint “Scope 2”) Product / Company GEMI Tools 17
    18. 18. From Lack of Methods to Methods Overload? Inventory (~accounting)Inventory & What and Ecoinvent Chapagain Hoekstra Bayart GaBiCategorize How much (m3) Global Mila-I- Vince Water Tool Canals Indexes Midpoint (~benchmarking) Scarcity indexes Chapagain Frischnecht Falkenmark Hoekstra (Ecopoints) Ohlsson Humans Humans Ecosystems Ecosystems Resources Resources Potential (heath and stress) (heath and stress) Gleick Impact problems? Water Use Per Resource Boulay Mila-I-Canals Mila-I-Canals Seckler Pfister Pfister Pfister Smakhtin Alcamo Endpoint (Damage) Pfister Humans Humans Ecosystems Ecosystems Resources Resources (health and stress) (health and stress) Water Resources Vulnerability Index Pfister Pfister PfisterNet Damage Consequences Raskin / damage Maendly Boesch quantification? Motoshita Humbert (CExD) Water Poverty Index Boulay Van Zelm Sullivan 18
    19. 19. Risks to Business Regulatory / Reputational Physical Risks Litigation Risks RisksSupply Chain Public Interruptions of Costs of Production Perceptions and Productivity Compliance Brand Reputation Product Use 19
    20. 20. Physical risks Scarcity Quality Deficiency or Compensation
    21. 21. T-shirt produced in India and Turkey SIMPLIFIED RESULTS
    22. 22. Regionalization of impacts Risks associated with water use: Water pollution Risks associated Ground water over with water use: exploitation Water rights Reduced availability for Water pollution nutrition Ground water over exploitation Risks Risks associated with associated with water use: water use: Water pollution Water pollution Ground water over exploitation River drying Greenhouse gases emissions Greenhouse gases emissions (from deforestation) Water use (including “green water”) Water impact (human health and ecosystems)
    23. 23. Geen Water LCI (Source: Nunez Montserrat, SETAC EU 2010) 23
    24. 24. Implications of Water Shortages• Ecosystem quality • Lakes and rivers drying • Disappearance of wetlands • Lack of water for wildlife• Human health and welfare • Disease • Displacement • Conflict / warfare • Nutrition • Economic development• Resources • Future development and response 24
    25. 25. About Quantis A Global Presence Diverse Clientele Academic Partners 25
    26. 26. INVENTORY IN THE MODEL The method assesses the impacts of the water withdrawal and credits the impacts of the water release HH impact i (CFi Vi )HHimpact = Human health impacts in DalyCFi = Characterization factor for water type i for the impact category Human Health (in Daly/m3 of water type i consumed)Vi = Volume of water type i – inventory value (in m3), positive value for water withdrawn and negative value for released flows 26
    27. 27. INVENTORY13 Water classes described by:- Source (surface, ground or rain)- Quality (34 parameters + organics)- Users it can be functional forClass Source Quality Users it can serve i S1 Surface low microbial, low toxic All users S2a Surface low microbial, medium All except Domestic 1 and toxic fisheries … … … … G1 Ground Mediocre quality All offstream users water …Rain Rain All users 27
    28. 28. DIRECT IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH CFi ( i Di , j 1 AC Ej ) j FATE EXPOSURE EFFECT i: Scarcity of water class i (dimensionless)Di,j: User j distribution of water class i (dimensionless)AC : Adaptation capacity (dimensionless)E j: Effect factor for user j (DALY/m³) 28
    30. 30. DIRECT IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH – EFFECT FACTOR CFi ( i Di , j 1 AC Ej ) j Di,j = User’s distribution of water type i for activity j (no units)• Assesses the proportion of the elementary flow affectingeach user.• Based on 1) Quality of the water : its functionality 2) Geographical region :intensity of each activity in that region 30
    31. 31. DIRECT IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH – ADAPTATION CAPACITY CFi ( i Di , j 1 AC Ej ) j 100% compensation Proportional adaptation No compensation Proportional adaptation 31
    32. 32. DIRECT IMPACTS ON HUMAN HEALTH – EFFECT FACTOR CFi ( i Di , j 1 AC Ej ) j Ej = Effect factor for user j (daly/m3)Efish/agriculture = Health Burden by kcal malnutrition* (Daly/kcal)(DALY/m3) Water requirement per kcal (m3/kcal)Edomestic = Health Impacts from water related issues* (Daly/yr)(DALY/m3) Water in deficit for domestic use* (m3/yr) Effect factors Ej (DALY/m3) Agriculture Fisheries Domestic * Data by country, geometric average used 6.64 x 10-5 2.05 x 10-5 3.11 x 10-3 to produce resulting Effect factor 32
    33. 33. HOW MUCH WATER SHOULD BE COMPENSATED?Backup All ImpactTechnology Categories Human Water Health deprivation for human Ecosystems Modification of uses HUMAN USES Quality water availability for… Natural IScomp,i Di , j i CA resources jIScomp,i = Impact Score of compensation for water of class i (m³to be compensated/m³water class i) 2 options: - Aggregated (as an indicator) - Desaggregated (by user) for modeling of compensation by system expansion 33
    34. 34. USING GIS FOR COMBINING SCALE0.5° x 0.5° grid 808 Resulting cellsWater consumptionWater availability All data 227 Main Watersheds Some quality data 208 countries Adaptation capacity Some quality data Some statistical data 34
    35. 35. RESULTS – HUMAN HEALTH CF 35
    37. 37. APPLICATION • Board production from recycled fibersParameter DescriptionInfluent 17.4 m3/ton Quality S2a (average surface water)Effluent 16.4 m3/ton Quality scenario 1 S2a (well treated) Quality scenario 2 S3a (partially treated) Scenario 3 No effluent (all water consumed) 37
    38. 38. HUMAN HEALTH IMPACTS FROM PRODUCTION OF BOARD IN HANOI FOR DIFFERENT SCENARIOS 7.E-04HHImpacts, board production, Hanoi (DALY/ton) Remaining substances 6.E-04 Arsenic, to air 5.E-04 Arsenic, to water 4.E-04 Dioxins Ammonia 3.E-04 Hydrocarbons, aromatic 2.E-04 Zinc, to soil 1.E-04 Sulfur dioxide 0.E+00 Particulates, < 2.5 um Well-treated Average All water Nitrogen oxides effluent effluent consumed (S2a) (S3a) (No effluent) WATER 38
    39. 39. NORMALIZED HUMAN HEALTH (HH) IMPACTS AND COMPENSATION VOLUME (COMP) FOR THE PRODUCTION OF 1 TON OF BOARD100%90%80% water70% process60%50%40%30%20%10% 0% HH Cape Comp HH Comp HH Comp Town Cape Town Cologne Cologne Hanoi Hanoi 39
    40. 40. DISCUSSION FUTURE WORKOnly methodology to Use adaptation capacity Consider quality of water withdrawn and released Evaluate impacts based on functionalities instead of Evaluate scarcity based on consumed water water classes and compare results Evaluate scarcity for different water qualities Include and differentiate instream/offstream users Evaluate fraction of water used by transport and Includes all water types: ground, surface, sea, rain, wastewater, etc... recreationLimits Identify default compensation scenarios and their Unreliable regional quality data impacts Cases of over/under estimation of impacts due to water categories Temporal adaptation of CF the resource depletion aspect of water Modeling of User’s distribution for transport and recreation not evaluated use Impacts from compensation are not evaluated Does not include impacts on future generations or ecosystems 40